Amanda Hall LAW OFFICES OF GROUP ONE State Bar No. 00000000 123 South Secondary Street San Jose, CA 95333 Phone: 408-555-1212 Fax: 408-555-1234
Attorney for PLAINTIFF, ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES ANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES ANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON, Plaintiff, vs. BEATRICE FOODS INC., A California Corporation, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: 123456789 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, Beatrice Foods, INC. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as A Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES ANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed investigation of the facts relating to this case and discovery is continuing in this action. All responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents which are presently available to and specifically known to this responding party.
It is anticipated that continuing discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts resulting in further information and documents. The following responses are given without prejudice to this responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts or documents. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply information and documents presently in this responding party’s custody, control and/or possession, or within his knowledge, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research and analysis.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF, ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES ANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON, (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) incorporate the following General Objections into their responses to each and every request for production/inspection:
1. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, compound, and not full and complete in and of itself, so as to make a response possible without speculation as to the meaning of the production.
2. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.
3. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks plaintiff’s counsel’s legal reasoning, theory, or statutory basis supporting a factual conclusion.
4. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
5. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information equally available to defendants or presumably within the knowledge of the defendants. Defendants can ascertain these documents from its own records or from other sources much more readily accessible to it than to Plaintiffs. 6. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is overly broad and seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
8. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to lawn care treatments that have been used on the premises of Plaintiffs property(s). Response to No. 8 Objection.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
9. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any physical examination or treatment concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 9
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential information.
10. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychiatric examination concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 10
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential information.
11. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychological treatment concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 11
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential information.
12. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to medicine prescriptions concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 12
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and may require the disclosure of confidential information.
13. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to oral communications between Plaintiffs and any insurance agency.
Oblection Response to No. 13
Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
14. All DOCUMENTS received by any of the plaintiffs from an insurance agency.
Response to No. 14
Objection
Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
15. All written communications between any of the plaintiffs and an insurance agency.
Response to No. 15
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad
This is Amanda's objections (7-16) I don't know why my format came out wrong ... 7. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to pest control that has been performed on plaintiffs property(s). In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
8. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to lawn care treatments that have been used on the premises of Plaintiffs property(s). In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
9. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any physical examination or treatment concerning James Anderson. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship
10. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychiatric examination concerning James Anderson. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship.
11. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychological treatment concerning James Anderson. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship.
12. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to medicine prescriptions concerning James Anderson. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship.
13. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to oral communications between Plaintiffs and any insurance agency. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
14. All DOCUMENTS received by any of the plaintiffs from an insurance agency. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
15. All written communications between any of the plaintiffs and an insurance agency. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute.
16. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to the filing of bankruptcy by the plaintiffs. In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute and seeks documents which are equally available. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents that are relevant and responsive to this request that are in their possession, custody and control.
30. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between any of the Plaintiffs and the California Department of Public Health. RESPONSE TO NO. 30: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Plaintiffs further object to the ambiguity and overbroadness of the words “writings,” “things,” and “conversations.” Plaintiffs additionally object to the burdensomeness of the request as it is unlimited in time frame and, as such, overbroad, harassing, annoying, irrelevant, and unintelligible. 31. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 31: Objection. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 32. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 32: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. After engaging in diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because the document is no longer in the plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, the written items are currently in the possession, custody, or control of the CDC, of San Francisco, California. 33. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 33: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. After engaging in diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because the document is no longer in the plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, the written items are currently in the possession, custody, or control of the CDC, of San Francisco, California. 34. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 34: Objection. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it demands disclosure of information protected by privacy rights and work product rule.
35. All death certificates for any persons who are alleged to have died as a result of an act of the Defendants. RESPONSE TO NO. 35
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will comply in part, and produces a copy of the death certificate of James Anderson.
36. All death certificates for any persons who are alleged to have died as a result of an act of the Defendants. RESPONSE TO NO. 36: Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will comply in part, and produces a copy of the death certificate of James Anderson.
37. All written communications between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. RESPONSE TO NO. 37: Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will comply in part, and produces a copy of the death certificate of James Anderson.
38. All written communications between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. RESPONSE TO NO. 38: Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff believes that documents responsive to this request are in defendant's possession.
39. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to oral communication between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. RESPONSE TONO. 39: Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff believes that documents responsive to this request are in defendant's possession.
40. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to sources of domestic water supply in the City of Woburn from 1960 to present. RESPONSE TO NO. 40: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sought by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant. 41. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to the flow of water in the City of Woburn from 1960 to present. RESPONSE TO NO. 41: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sough by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant. 42. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to a hydrological study in the City of Woburn. RESPONSE TO NO. 42: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sought by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant.
43. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to a geological study for the City of Woburn. RESPONSE TO NO. 43: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sough by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant. 44. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to investigations that the Plaintiffs intend to use in any way in this action. RESPONSE TO NO. 44: Objections. Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs further object to this request for production to the extent that the request seeks plaintiff’s counsel’s legal reasoning, theory, or statutory basis supporting a factual conclusion.
Dated: June 10, 1982 _ Amanda Hall Attorney for PLAINTIFF ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES AANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is LAW OFFICES OF GROUP ONE, 123 South Secondary Street, San Jose, CA 95333. On June 10, 1982, I served a copy of the below-listed document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT BEATRICE FOODS INC.
¨BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope or package, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above and placed the envelope or package for collection and mailing, following this firm’s ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day that document(s) is/are placed for collection and mailing, it/they is/are deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope or package with postage fully prepaid. ¨BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed the document(s) to the persons at the fax numbers listed above. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission containing the time, date, and sending fax machine telephone number, which I printed out, is available upon request. ¨BY HAND-DELIVERY: I served the document(s) by placing it/them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. A copy of the professional messenger’s proof of delivery is available upon request. þBY E-MAIL: I caused the document(s) to be served electronically on the persons at the electronic notification addresses listed below. ¨BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June10, 1982, at San Jose, California.
LAW OFFICES OF GROUP ONE
State Bar No. 00000000
123 South Secondary Street
San Jose, CA 95333
Phone: 408-555-1212
Fax: 408-555-1234
Attorney for PLAINTIFF,
ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and
as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES
ANDERSON, and as Administratrix
of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Plaintiff,
vs.
BEATRICE FOODS INC., A California Corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, Beatrice Foods, INC.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as A Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES ANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
It should be noted that this responding party has not fully completed investigation of the facts relating to this case and discovery is continuing in this action. All responses contained herein are based only upon such information and documents which are presently available to and specifically known to this responding party.
It is anticipated that continuing discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts resulting in further information and documents. The following responses are given without prejudice to this responding party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered facts or documents. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to supply information and documents presently in this responding party’s custody, control and/or possession, or within his knowledge, but should in no way be to the prejudice of this responding party in relation to further discovery, research and analysis.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF, ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES ANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON, (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) incorporate the following General Objections into their responses to each and every request for production/inspection:
1. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, compound, and not full and complete in and of itself, so as to make a response possible without speculation as to the meaning of the production.
2. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.
3. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks plaintiff’s counsel’s legal reasoning, theory, or statutory basis supporting a factual conclusion.
4. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
5. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information equally available to defendants or presumably within the knowledge of the defendants. Defendants can ascertain these documents from its own records or from other sources much more readily accessible to it than to Plaintiffs.
6. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is overly broad and seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, plaintiff responds as follows:
8. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to lawn care treatments that have been used on the premises of Plaintiffs property(s).
Response to No. 8
Objection.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
9. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any physical examination or treatment concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 9
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential information.
10. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychiatric examination concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 10
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential information.
11. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychological treatment concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 11
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential information.
12. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to medicine prescriptions concerning James Anderson.
Response to No. 12
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and may require the disclosure of confidential information.
13. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to oral communications between Plaintiffs and any insurance agency.
Oblection
Response to No. 13
Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
14. All DOCUMENTS received by any of the plaintiffs from an insurance agency.
Response to No. 14
Objection
Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
15. All written communications between any of the plaintiffs and an insurance agency.
Response to No. 15
Objection.
Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad
This is Amanda's objections (7-16) I don't know why my format came out wrong ... 7. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to pest control that has been performed on plaintiffs property(s).
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
8. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to lawn care treatments that have been used on the premises of Plaintiffs property(s).
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
9. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any physical examination or treatment concerning James Anderson.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship
10. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychiatric examination concerning James Anderson.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship.
11. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to any psychological treatment concerning James Anderson.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship.
12. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to medicine prescriptions concerning James Anderson.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and is privileged under the physician-patient relationship.
13. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to oral communications between Plaintiffs and any insurance agency.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
14. All DOCUMENTS received by any of the plaintiffs from an insurance agency.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute
15. All written communications between any of the plaintiffs and an insurance agency.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute.
16. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to the filing of bankruptcy by the plaintiffs.
In addition to the General Objections set forth above, which are incorporated herein, plaintiff objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, narrowly tailored to the issues in dispute and seeks documents which are equally available.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, plaintiff responds as follows: Discovery is ongoing and Plaintiff will produce non-privileged documents that are relevant and responsive to this request that are in their possession, custody and control.
30. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between any of the Plaintiffs and the California Department of Public Health.
RESPONSE TO NO. 30:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Plaintiffs further object to the ambiguity and overbroadness of the words “writings,” “things,” and “conversations.” Plaintiffs additionally object to the burdensomeness of the request as it is unlimited in time frame and, as such, overbroad, harassing, annoying, irrelevant, and unintelligible.
31. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 31:
Objection.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
32. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 32:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. After engaging in diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because the document is no longer in the plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, the written items are currently in the possession, custody, or control of the CDC, of San Francisco, California.
33. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 33:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. After engaging in diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to comply with this request because the document is no longer in the plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. To the best of plaintiff’s knowledge, the written items are currently in the possession, custody, or control of the CDC, of San Francisco, California.
34. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to written communication between the Plaintiffs and any governmental agencies relating to the contamination of drinking water in the City of Woburn, California.
RESPONSE TO NO. 34:
Objection.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it demands disclosure of information protected by privacy rights and work product rule.
35. All death certificates for any persons who are alleged to have died as a result of an act of the Defendants.
RESPONSE TO NO. 35
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will comply in part, and produces a copy of the death certificate of James Anderson.
36. All death certificates for any persons who are alleged to have died as a result of an act of the Defendants.
RESPONSE TO NO. 36:
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will comply in part, and produces a copy of the death certificate of James Anderson.
37. All written communications between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
RESPONSE TO NO. 37:
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff will comply in part, and produces a copy of the death certificate of James Anderson.
38. All written communications between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
RESPONSE TO NO. 38:
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff believes that documents responsive to this request are in defendant's possession.
39. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to oral communication between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
RESPONSE TO NO. 39:
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiff objects in that this request is unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested documents are equally available to defendant. Without waiving said objection, after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff believes that documents responsive to this request are in defendant's possession.
40. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to sources of domestic water supply in the City of Woburn from 1960 to present.
RESPONSE TO NO. 40:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sought by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant.
41. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to the flow of water in the City of Woburn from 1960 to present.
RESPONSE TO NO. 41:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sough by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant.
42. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to a hydrological study in the City of Woburn.
RESPONSE TO NO. 42:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sought by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant.
43. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to a geological study for the City of Woburn.
RESPONSE TO NO. 43:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs further object to this demand on the grounds that the information sough by this demand is a public record which is readily available to Defendant.
44. All DOCUMENTS pertaining to investigations that the Plaintiffs intend to use in any way in this action.
RESPONSE TO NO. 44:
Objections.
Plaintiffs incorporate the objections contained in the general objections above. Plaintiffs object to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Plaintiffs further object to this request for production to the extent that the request seeks plaintiff’s counsel’s legal reasoning, theory, or statutory basis supporting a factual conclusion.
Dated: June 10, 1982
_
Amanda Hall
Attorney for PLAINTIFF
ANNE ANDERSON, for herself, and as a Parent and Next Friend of CHARLES AANDERSON, and as Administratrix of the Estate of JAMES ANDERSON
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is LAW OFFICES OF GROUP ONE, 123 South Secondary Street, San Jose, CA 95333.
On June 10, 1982, I served a copy of the below-listed document(s) described as:
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT BEATRICE FOODS INC.
¨ BY U.S. MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope or package, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth above and placed the envelope or package for collection and mailing, following this firm’s ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collecting and processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day that document(s) is/are placed for collection and mailing, it/they is/are deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope or package with postage fully prepaid.
¨ BY FAX TRANSMISSION: I faxed the document(s) to the persons at the fax numbers listed above. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission containing the time, date, and sending fax machine telephone number, which I printed out, is available upon request.
¨ BY HAND-DELIVERY: I served the document(s) by placing it/them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. A copy of the professional messenger’s proof of delivery is available upon request.
þ BY E-MAIL: I caused the document(s) to be served electronically on the persons at the electronic notification addresses listed below.
¨ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) listed above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
Executed on June10, 1982, at San Jose, California.
_
Amanda Hall